riotshield wrote:
DPReview updated its spec sheet to show a CIPA battery life rating of 290 shots for the A7r II. Not as good as the A7 II rating but not as bad as I imagined.
It would help a lot if Sony had put a dedicated EVF/LCD button next to the menu button (or allow it to be repurposed to control the behavior of the EVF/LCD switching. It would be nice to leave the camera powered-up, but have the LCD/EVF off until needed - wakeup from sleep is OK, but still this would be better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The spec of 392 PDAF sensors suggests it is a very different system. I expect it will work better than the A7 II, but we only have a couple reports that it works well with the metabones and Canon lenses. These might be a bit exaggerated. My guess and it is just a guess is that it will work ok, but clearly not as well as a Canon camera. Among other things I can't see how it would have AF micro adjust.
Steve:
There is no need for micro adjust since the AF is on sensor. (Similar to how live view AF on a canon body does not need micro adjust.)
There is no need for micro adjust since the AF is on sensor. (Similar to how live view AF on a canon body does not need micro adjust.)
Chris
But a PDAF LENS might need micro-adjustment if it just moves to a focus location predicted by the PDAF sensors on the chip and does not check to make sure it's achieved best focus . . .
I recall reading that the benefits of BSI for ISO performance decrease as sensor size increases. The Exmor R has been around since 2008 but was only used in smartphone cameras until the RX100 II, and then Samsung put a BSI sensor in the NX1. Even in the RX100 II there was only a minor ISO performance improvement over the RX100.
According to the press release, the BSI structure allows for the faster (3.5x the A7r) sensor readout rate, which is probably the real benefit of BSI and the bottleneck in the A7r. With the faster readout they can implement the EFCS/full electronic shutter and speed up AF.
In the smartphone realm, BSI is pretty 'old' tech since it's been around since the iPhone 4S era. The stacked CMOS tech in the Exmor RS in the newer smartphones (iPhone 6, Galaxy S6, etc) and the RX10 II and RX100 IV is Sony's trump card at the moment, but it'll be a while before it trickles 'down' to ILCs.
retrofocus wrote:
I don't disagree with this at all. This is a very general statement which applies pretty much for anything which we purchase. My point was more in regard to Leica vs. Sony value over time. Just to add to this my personal view in regard to the A7R II: If some of its features convince me to upgrade, I could see myself vesting $2500 at max.
Value over time of Leica camera is not any better than Sony; this notion is definitely not true anymore nowadays when Leica production already exceed the demand. The M240 came out a year before the A7r. After three years, one can get a used M240 for about $2500-$3000 less than the MSRP while the A7r would depreciate about $1000-$1200. So based on the percentage does not exactly show the true picture. The successor of the M240 is still no where to be seen while the A7R II is here within the next two months; so the price drop is still reasonable in light of that. If one wants to be an early adopter, one will have to deal with the quick depreciation of short cycle electronics.
To the engineers and designers at Sony.
Thank you for bringing out the most sophisticated and innovative camera on the Planet....!!
Those of us who spend a lot of time taking pictures thank you and congratulate you...!
Gracias...
jhinkey wrote:
But a PDAF LENS might need micro-adjustment if it just moves to a focus location predicted by the PDAF sensors on the chip and does not check to make sure it's achieved best focus . . .
riotshield wrote:
I recall reading that the benefits of BSI for ISO performance decrease as sensor size increases. The Exmor R has been around since 2008 but was only used in smartphone cameras until the RX100 II, and then Samsung put a BSI sensor in the NX1. Even in the RX100 II there was only a minor ISO performance improvement over the RX100.
According to the press release, the BSI structure allows for the faster (3.5x the A7r) sensor readout rate, which is probably the real benefit of BSI and the bottleneck in the A7r. With the faster readout they can implement the EFCS/full electronic shutter and speed up AF.
In the smartphone realm, BSI is pretty 'old' tech since it's been around since the iPhone 4S era. The stacked CMOS tech in the Exmor RS in the newer smartphones (iPhone 6, Galaxy S6, etc) and the RX10 II and RX100 IV is Sony's trump card at the moment, but it'll be a while before it trickles 'down' to ILCs....Show more →
From the sensor cross section diagrams it also looked like the use of BSI allowed for a larger light gathering angle - perhaps it's just the diagram, but hopefully wide angle rangefinder lenses are now much better in the corners . . . . someone else that are much smarter on such things please chime in!
Batty_F wrote:
Did I hear correctly that the USB port on the A7r 2 is USB 2, not 3? So how would this camera replace the D810 in a tethered workflow?
The A7r in Capture One tethered is still very fast. Its a 3 second to preview which is not rocket fast but either is a Phase One Back that uses dedicated software in Capture One. Its pretty much on par with a lot of cams. People keep forgetting your pushing a lot of data through a pipeline. You want fast get a 12mpx camera tethered. A lot of this depends on the computers themselves not so much the connection. We forget we used to tether using Firewire 400 which was dirt slow but still on par with tethering speed.
jhinkey wrote:
From the sensor cross section diagrams it also looked like the use of BSI allowed for a larger light gathering angle - perhaps it's just the diagram, but hopefully wide angle rangefinder lenses are now much better in the corners . . . . someone else that are much smarter on such things please chime in!
The BSI spreads the light much more evenly across the frame so it will help improve light in the corners and actually may solve some vignetting but more importantly some of those Leica M lenses might just benefit with the wider ray angle of light coming in. Now smearing may still be there and we have to see but certainly will push more light evenly across the frame. Going to be interesting to see this in action
retrofocus wrote:
I don't disagree with this at all. This is a very general statement which applies pretty much for anything which we purchase. My point was more in regard to Leica vs. Sony value over time. Just to add to this my personal view in regard to the A7R II: If some of its features convince me to upgrade, I could see myself vesting $2500 at max.
I think the Leica value as of late has been a bit like Beanie Babies or Dot Com stocks. Around what, 5 years ago Leica got really popular. The M9 was kind of the first high resolution, compact FF option, and it was great.
Look at how many forum regulars here on FM all got the RF bug, I know I did. Glass demand was greater than supply. We were paying silly money for even discontinued M39 Voigtlander optics and Zeiss ZM stuff was going for greater than new value etc. I think I paid nearly a grand for a ZM 35/2.8 Biogon C lol
It felt like you really couldn't lose money but then over time the supply caught up, new mirrorless options came out, we had access to a bunch of high quality, yet far cheaper Canon FDn, OM, Rokkor etc optics we could play with for 1/10th the cost etc.
New Leica bodies like the Monochrome and 240 came out and while very nice, the $7K+ price tags were tough to swallow, and while many of us had some glass, we couldn't really continue down the Leica path
I ended up selling my M9 (and my M8.2), both of which I bought used for a decent price, maybe 80% of what I paid for them. Certainly would of been a far bigger hit if I had bought them new.
Now days I think a used M9 probably will go for about what you bought it for, but certainly not the $6k or so they used to sell for in a day on the B&S forum. New M240 or similar is also going to lose a few thousand dollars over a few years. I don't think any modern digital body is ever going to really appreciate.
Might do a little better with certain glass, but since there isn't a 6 month wait for a Lux, used values will be less than readily available new prices. ZM, VC etc glass also isn't going to appreciate.
I don't think Leica is an investment these days in the slightest, and while I do agree it holds its value well for certain models (Not all) the same can be said for some Sony gear.
The 55/1.8 FE for example.... I bought one when the A7 first came out for about $800, and you can still sell that lens for $750 or so easily. Its held its value very well.
Same can't be said for the A7 body, but lens like the 70-200 f4 aren't going to drop too much.
High quality glass, regardless of mount (given its still supported) will retain value far better than bodies do. I think we all pretty much know this, and that is why its probably better to "invest" in glass, rather than bodies.
Adding a 16-35 probably will do more to improve ones photographic enjoyment/options than a new body will, and will also still be useful on a new body down the road, even when todays latest and greatest body is selling at 50%.
mogul wrote:
Don't forget that this is a hybrid CDAF/PDAF system...the CDAF should eliminate the problems of micro adjust with all lenses.
Hmm . . . I believe my Oly EM1 has a similar hybrid CDAF/PDAF system, but there is still micro-adjust for the particular lenses. I don't have it with me at the moment, but I thought with my 43 150/2 you can use micro adjust. The Sony lenses may be different.
Jun 11, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
There is no need for micro adjust since the AF is on sensor. (Similar to how live view AF on a canon body does not need micro adjust.)
Chris
Hi Chris,
That certainly is true for on sensor contrast detect AF, but it remains to be seen if it is true for on sensor phase detect AF like the A7r II will be using. I think the on sensor phase detect may well in the end benefit from micro-adjust, but we will see.
Please don't ask for 'pop up' flash. I am afraid Sony may hear this and actually give it to us. As it is i am tortured by over-crowded, childish mode dials.
There should be no 'pop up' flashs in a $3000 cameras, nor various 'auto modes'. They do have a place in $300 cameras.
Canon knows how to do this.
So you're saying that tethered image transfer is likely to take 4 seconds on the A7r 2, since the A7r 1 takes 3 seconds? 4 seconds per shot is pretty unacceptable.
Jun 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mogul wrote:
Don't forget that this is a hybrid CDAF/PDAF system...the CDAF should eliminate the problems of micro adjust with all lenses.
Yeah, but if you rely on contrast detect AF to correct for micro adjust with Sony A mount and Canon EF mount lenses, then you can't expect fast AF. That will slow things down substantially. I expect that in time Sony will offer micro adjust for A mount lenses, but I think we will be out of luck for Canon lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, but if you rely on contrast detect AF to correct for micro adjust with Sony A mount and Canon EF mount lenses, then you can't expect fast AF. That will slow things down substantially. I expect that in time Sony will offer micro adjust for A mount lenses, but I think we will be out of luck for Canon lenses.
